A legislator gets the idea, re: school shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.

Monkeyleg

Member.
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,057
Location
Decatur, AL
Lasee’s Notes
October 3, 2006
*

Is Arming Teachers the Solution to School Shootings?

*
Last week, fifteen year old Eric Hainstock walked into Weston high school in Cazenovia and fatally shot his principal. In a true act of heroism, despite being shot three times John Klang wrestled the gun away from the troubled teen. This cold blooded murder carried out by a teenager shocked residents of this quiet, rural farming town located 40 miles northwest of Madison. The story has made international headlines and left many wondering why this young man made the choice to commit such a horrific crime.
*
This was the third school shooting in the nation in the last two weeks. Last Wednesday, a drifter in Colorado took six high school girls hostage, molested them and then killed one of the young women then himself as police closed in on his location. Yesterday, a truck driver took twelve students hostage in a one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. He barred the doors and killed five young girls.* Six others are in critical condition.
*
Another school shooting spree was prevented in Green Bay last month after a student turned in his friends who had told him of their plot to open fire at school. Last week a 16 year old from Madison got into the home economics room and stole a knife which he used to threaten another student on school grounds.
*
The school shooting in Wisconsin is particularly concerning. Not because the others were less tragic, but because it happened so close to home. After the initial shock and sorrow of this tragedy wears off, there will be many questions to be answered. Naturally most people will want to know why this troubled teen did what he did.
*
We must look beyond the why. Only Eric Hainstock truly knows why he walked into his high school with murder on his mind that day. We know that he had a horrible family life and that he may have been picked on by his fellow classmates. Were those the things that pushed him over the edge? We may never know.
*
Unfortunately we can not legislate proper parenting or prevent kids from poking fun at one another. The fact is that many kids suffer through the same treatment and worse and don’t take a gun to school and commit murder.
The question then becomes: what can we do to prevent school violence in the future?
*
To enhance security at the schools in Cazenovia at least one armed police officer will stand guard when students return to class later this week. Sounds like a reasonable plan. Unfortunately there have been several school shootings in recent years and NOT one has been stopped by the police. While the police provide many valuable protective services, stopping a school shooting in progress is not one of them.
*
Many on the left will most likely use this tragedy to push for a total ban on guns. In their naïve view, if there were no guns there would be no crime and we would all live in a peaceful, safer society and sing kum-bye-yah together. Several countries have tried
this tactic. It has failed every time.
*
Great Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. To curb violent crime rates, they banned all handguns in 1997. What happened after they disarmed the general public? Homicide rates jumped by 50% and armed muggings increased by 53%. All handguns gone, and gun violence up. Go figure.
*
In 1996, Australia instituted a “buy back” program which took 660,000 guns off the streets. If the liberal gun control theory is right, crime rates should have fallen Down Under. They didn’t. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the murder rate increased by nearly 10%, assaults rose by 17%, and armed robbery went up by 73%. But how can that be? I thought fewer guns meant less violent crime.
*
The truth of course is that taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms won’t make us safer. Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Like it or not, that includes troubled teens like Eric Hainstock and many others who have opened fire in our schools. These people are intent on destruction and no law or policy would have prevented these tragedies.
*
So what then?
*
To make our schools safe for our students to learn all options should be on the table. That includes encouraging teachers and other school officials to carry firearms. While it may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.
*
Following repeated attacks of Israeli schools by Palestinian terrorists, teachers and parent volunteers in the West Bank began carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves and their students from harm. In the twenty five years since, no child has been harmed by gunfire in an Israeli school. Thailand recently enacted a similar program to allow teachers to carry guns for protection. The results have been the same – less violence and a safer learning environment for their children.
*
We, as adults, have a duty to protect our children. If we truly want to make our schools safe havens for learning wouldn’t it make sense to give our teachers the tools and training they need to protect our kids from harm?
*
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District (WI), covering events in the Legislature and statewide.
*
If you know of anyone else who would like to receive Lasee’s Notes, please send an email to [email protected] with the person’s name and email address, and we’ll add them to the list.
*
 
I know a lot of school teachers, but not a lot I think need to be carrying guns to school.

Unless someone has a strong interest in doing this, and is willing to do a lot of training, I am opposed. Arming teachers is in an effort to defend schools and intercede criminals is a different standard than the average CCW'er is held to.

Most people that want to work for the government and carry a firearm become police officers or soldiers, not teachers.

I don't think there is a way to solve problems that involve crazy people committing mass murder. Its going to happen, and there isnt anything you can do to stop it. Having an armed teacher might or might not help, and potentially creates a whole other set of problems.
 
I'm all for guns in the hands of teachers, but I think there 'are' better solutions.

*Listen to kids. At least half of these turds have bragged to someone that they were about to do something stupid. Provide a forum for kids to voice concerns over what they have heard at school. Yes, there are many maniacs who wont say a word, but some will.

*Keep all these damn pedophiles and 'career criminals' in jail. How the hell can you even be out of jail and be labeled a 'career criminal'??? This continues to baffle me.

*Make the press understand that by talking about the perp who killed 1-15 kids, they are just making others move towards that method of 'going out in a bang'.. heck, they'll at least be on the news for a few days. Stop mentioning them by name and going over their motives for days. Work the problem, not the perpetrator.

*Listen to the damn teachers. They know the problems a helluva lot better than we do. They want guns in schools? Do it. They want metal detectors? Do it. They want closed campuses and locked doors? Do it. Most likely they just want parents to be involved... too bad that in our lazy, liberal society its easiser to blame guns or homos than the parents.
 
I know a lot of school teachers, but not a lot I think need to be carrying guns to school.

Unless someone has a strong interest in doing this, and is willing to do a lot of training, I am opposed. Arming teachers is in an effort to defend schools and intercede criminals is a different standard than the average CCW'er is held to.

Most people that want to work for the government and carry a firearm become police officers or soldiers, not teachers.

I don't think there is a way to solve problems that involve crazy people committing mass murder. Its going to happen, and there isnt anything you can do to stop it. Having an armed teacher might or might not help, and potentially creates a whole other set of problems.
The point is not to have every teacher/administrator packing, just to have those who want to. The objective is not complete protection, but to make the planning (and the vast majority of the slime are not impluse perpetrators) as complex and unknown risk filled as possible.

Do you think any of the three idiots in the last week would have pulled their stunt IF immediate armed response was known to possibly exist?
 
Lone_Gunman: "Unless someone has a strong interest in doing this, and is willing to do a lot of training, I am opposed. Arming teachers is in an effort to defend schools and intercede criminals is a different standard than the average CCW'er is held to."

Would you favor or oppose letting teachers with valid carry permits carry on the job (ie, schools)?

If you favor teachers with valid permits to carry on the job, then how is their responsibility different than yours or mine? My right to carry doesn't make me a cop. But it could put me in the situation of having to decide whether or not to take a shot at someone who is not an immediate threat to me, but to someone else.

We've grappled on that topic on THR for many years now, but I thought the concensus was that no incident is the same.

And, given your many posts here, I don't think that you believe in "gun-free ____(whatever) zones."

So, are you saying that you don't believe that carrying a gun should be part of a teacher's job (a point I would agree with), or that schools should remain off-limits to concealed carry permit holders? (I hope I know your answer).
 
Monkeyleg, no I don't think schools in general need to be gun free zones.

However, when I carry a concealed weapon it is for my personal and family's defense. I am not carrying with the intention of defending other people.

If teachers start carrying, the public will have the expectation of them defending children, not just themselves. I think they will be held to a standard closer to that of a law enforcement officer, rather than a citizen with a CCW permit. They will need to be taught more than just gun safety. They will need to know tactics as well if we are going to use them as policemen.

I also think school systems will be very afraid of the legal liability involved in arming teachers. Unless the teachers are held to the same standard as law enforcement (and even if they are), I think this is a huge can of worms from a liability standpoint, such as if a teacher accidentally shoots the wrong person, or their gun is taken away, or they fail to keep students safe.

School shootings are not preventable. No matter what we do, in a free country, crazy people will always be able to kill innocent people.
 
However, when I carry a concealed weapon it is for my personal and family's defense. I am not carrying with the intention of defending other people.

that makes almost no sense. by definition, you are defending others when you defend your family. teachers have very close relationships with their students and co-workers. many might say they are as close as family members in many ways. it's noble to teach, it would be even more noble to protect children in this way if need be.

If teachers start carrying, the public will have the expectation of them defending children, not just themselves. I think they will be held to a standard closer to that of a law enforcement officer, rather than a citizen with a CCW permit. They will need to be taught more than just gun safety. They will need to know tactics as well if we are going to use them as policemen.

that's nonsensical. despite what we see on the news, and has been recently mentioned, school shootings are really not that common, in the grand scheme of things. your average teacher is no more likely to have to use a gun to defend himself than your average person walking a city street.

I also think school systems will be very afraid of the legal liability involved in arming teachers. Unless the teachers are held to the same standard as law enforcement (and even if they are), I think this is a huge can of worms from a liability standpoint, such as if a teacher accidentally shoots the wrong person, or their gun is taken away, or they fail to keep students safe.

who cares? if it the law changed and permitted legally carried guns inside schools, it would be the law. why should what school systems maybe being afraid of, affect the law? perhaps since many average joe americans 'have fears' about ANYBODY carrying weapons, we should just scrap the whole idea of being able to carry a firearm at all. we're not supposed to legislate based on people's fears.

School shootings are not preventable. No matter what we do, in a free country, crazy people will always be able to kill innocent people.

more nonsense. they ARE preventable. many of these incidents could have been prevented if staff had been armed and had the opportunity to shoot and kill these wastes of space before anyone else was harmed.
 
Last edited:
Arming teachers might swing the odds in back in favor of the good guys, but there is no guarantee that an armed teacher would be successfully be able to stop a badguy.. and if there's more than one BG (Columbine style), the teacher would probably end up dead.

I tend to agree with Lone_Gunman.. Teachers are held to a little higher standard than the average person with a permit. If their duty becomes protecting children from violence, they need to be trained in tactics and such.. just like a LEO. They also need to be paid more :)
 
i don't think anybody is saying teachers that normally wouldn't own or carry firearms be compelled to do so. we're talking about teachers that are already gun owners, and would choose to carry in school if it was legal.....like myself.
 
carlrodd, I agree with both of your posts above.

Arming teachers might swing the odds in back in favor of the good guys, but there is no guarantee that an armed teacher would be successfully be able to stop a badguy.. and if there's more than one BG (Columbine style), the teacher would probably end up dead.
So, because if only "might" work we should not even seriously consider it? :confused: And, teachers have ended up dead anyway.

I hate to sound like a broken CD, but this kind of argument is like saying having fire extinguishers in school buildings is a bad idea because there is no guarantee that a fire could successfully be but out with one. Or that we want our teachers teaching not attempting to put out a fire without extensive training, so we should ban fire extinguishers from schools and have them wait for professional firefighters to arrive. :rolleyes: :barf:
 
I didnt say we shouldnt consider it, I said it's not a 100% guarantee against something bad happening in the school. The other guy seems to think school shootings are completely preventable if only teachers and staff had guns. That's wishful thinking IMO. For the record, I really dont care if teacher carry, but Im not gonna buy into the notion that a teacher with a gun would guarantee the safety of the kids.

In life, fecal matter happens. Doesnt matter how many laws we have or how much we try to prepare.. some things you just cant solve. You can take steps to mitigate bad stuff, but that's about it.
 
And, we abolish fire, tornado and earthquake drills in schools because they "might" work or may not. Thus, since there's no guarantee, let's abolish them?:confused: No, we drill, we train, again then some more. Certainly no guarantees, crazed, but with training we improve the odds!

Since Maalot, how many school shootings have there been in Israel? Why do you think that number is so low even though Israel is surrounded by people want to kill them?

Allow the teachers that wish to carry to carry. Lone's concern is certainly a reasonable one but I believe could be addressed by additional training.

Take volunteers, train them up. The mad dogs will not know who is carrying and who is not. They will go commit their narrasistic nihilism elsewhere.:)
 
I'm all for allowing teachers to carry in school. I'm a police officer at a college. However I have to agree with the poster who states that those teachers had better be very good marksmen. I want them to be better than average due to the results of being a bad shot in a situation.

75% hit ratio on paper to qualify for CCW just isn't good enough with live targets and innocent bystanders. (For cops either, in case someone was sensing a double standard)
 
I'm all for allowing teachers to carry in school. I'm a police officer at a college. However I have to agree with the poster who states that those teachers had better be very good marksmen. I want them to be better than average due to the results of being a bad shot in a situation.

75% hit ratio on paper to qualify for CCW just isn't good enough with live targets and innocent bystanders. (For cops either, in case someone was sensing a double standard)
-jcoiii

great logic. we'll just wait till every teacher that wishes to carry in school can prove that they are able to hit a target 100 percent of the time, in every situation. why not hold cops to that standard as well? we really cannot accept the possibility of an innocent potentially getting in the way while a teacher or other staff member attempts to prevent a huge tragedy. meanwhile, the monster that's creating the situation to begin with can continue to pick targets with impunity, and lots of time.

so, if i'm not mistaken here, the logic is that it's better to let a soulless beast run around a school and rape and murder whoever he chooses, then to let a teacher be armed, because there's a chance that the teacher, or even a cop might miss and hurt an innocent. this is a nation of scared, alarmist spaghetti spines.
 
I am going to excuse myself from the discussion; there is NO chance you will ever get a law passed that will allow teachers to carry, and further discussion is simply a waste of time.

Carry on.
-lone gunman

you are quite right. with that sort of attitude prevelant, there really isn't a chance.
 
All of the objections that are raised against armed teachers are identical to the arguments against right-to-carry in general.

It is perfectly legal for anyone with a license to carry in schools in Oregon and Utah, and possibly California.

If teachers were a bloodthirsty, crazed bunch of shoot-em-nuts, we would have heard about it by now.
 
carlrodd,

Not exactly what I meant. But I'd be happy if every cop had to shoot 100%. (I'd still have a bit of work to do to hit the 10ring 50 times from 3-25 yds though).

But carrying at school means you will have numerous innocents in the line of fire. Not may, but will. Plus there are some tactical ideas to consider. I only mean to say that the people who would carry in schools should have a bit more training than is offered in the (TN) CCW course.

Barring that, I'm all for carrying at school by teachers/staff/anyone legally allowed to carry anywhere else.
 
For reference, here's some info from Arizona Revised Statutes!


A.R.S. said:
13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

1. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 except a pocket knife concealed on his person; or

2. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 concealed within immediate control of any person in or on a means of transportation; or

3. Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon; or

4. Possessing a deadly weapon or prohibited weapon if such person is a prohibited possessor; or

5. Selling or transferring a deadly weapon to a prohibited possessor; or

6. Defacing a deadly weapon; or

7. Possessing a defaced deadly weapon knowing the deadly weapon was defaced; or

8. Using or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense included in chapter 34 of this title; or

9. Discharging a firearm at an occupied structure in order to assist, promote or further the interests of a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise; or

10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01; or

11. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a deadly weapon; or

12. Possessing a deadly weapon on school grounds; or

13. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying a deadly weapon on his person or within the immediate control of any person; or

14. Supplying, selling or giving possession or control of a firearm to another person if the person knows or has reason to know that the other person would use the firearm in the commission of any felony; or

15. Using, possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon in furtherance of any act of terrorism as defined in section 13-2301 or possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon knowing or having reason to know that it will be used to facilitate any act of terrorism as defined in section 13-2301.

B. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a person in his dwelling, on his business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person.

C. Subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this section shall not apply to:

1. A peace officer or any person summoned by any peace officer to assist and while actually assisting in the performance of official duties; or

2. A member of the military forces of the United States or of any state of the United States in the performance of official duties; or

3. A warden, deputy warden or correctional officer of the state department of corrections; or

4. A person specifically licensed, authorized or permitted pursuant to a statute of this state or of the United States.

D. Subsection A, paragraphs 3 and 7 of this section shall not apply to:

1. The possessing, transporting, selling or transferring of weapons by a museum as a part of its collection or an educational institution for educational purposes or by an authorized employee of such museum or institution, if:

(a) Such museum or institution is operated by the United States or this state or a political subdivision of this state, or by an organization described in 26 United States Code section 170(c) as a recipient of a charitable contribution; and

(b) Reasonable precautions are taken with respect to theft or misuse of such material.

2. The regular and lawful transporting as merchandise; or

3. Acquisition by a person by operation of law such as by gift, devise or descent or in a fiduciary capacity as a recipient of the property or former property of an insolvent, incapacitated or deceased person.

E. Subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section shall not apply to the merchandise of an authorized manufacturer of or dealer in prohibited weapons, when such material is intended to be manufactured, possessed, transported, sold or transferred solely for or to a dealer, a regularly constituted or appointed state, county or municipal police department or police officer, a detention facility, the military service of this or another state or the United States, a museum or educational institution or a person specifically licensed or permitted pursuant to federal or state law.

F. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a belt holster which holster is wholly or partially visible, or carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons which scabbard or case is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.

G. Subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section shall not apply to shooting ranges or shooting events, hunting areas or similar locations or activities.

H. Subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section shall not apply to a weapon described in section 13-3101, subsection A, paragraph 7, subdivision (e), if such weapon is possessed for the purposes of preparing for, conducting or participating in lawful exhibitions, demonstrations, contests or athletic events involving the use of such weapon. Subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section shall not apply to a weapon if such weapon is possessed for the purposes of preparing for, conducting or participating in hunter or firearm safety courses.

I. Subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section shall not apply to the possession of a:

1. Firearm that is not loaded and that is carried within a means of transportation under the control of an adult provided that if the adult leaves the means of transportation the firearm shall not be visible from the outside of the means of transportation and the means of transportation shall be locked.

2. Firearm for use on the school grounds in a program approved by a school.

J. The operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the employee of the operator or sponsor or the agent of the sponsor, including a public entity or public employee, is not liable for acts or omissions pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section unless the operator, sponsor, employee or agent intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.

K. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 9, 14 or 15 of this section is a class 3 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 3, 4, 8 or 13 of this section is a class 4 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor unless the violation occurs in connection with conduct which violates the provisions of section 13-2308, subsection A, paragraph 5, section 13-2312, subsection C, section 13-3409 or section 13-3411, in which case the offense is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 5, 6 or 7 of this section is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 10 or 11 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.

L. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state.

2. "Public event" means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration either conducted by a public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place.

3. "School" means a public or nonpublic kindergarten program, common school or high school.

4. "School grounds" means in, or on the grounds of, a school.

I've highlighted the important parts in bold font! I would say that a licensed CCWer is authorized to carry in a school.
 
But carrying at school means you will have numerous innocents in the line of fire. Not may, but will.
Following ths false logic would support the prohibition of CCW just about everywhere that you are likely to need it.
 
I agree such incidents aren't "preventable", almost nothing is, but they are "interruptable".

If we take as a given that students are going to die (every one of these incidents has been lethal) in any event, using "a student might be shot by accident" is a specious argument.

If armed response is available at the beginning, before the attacker can esconce themselves with hostages, then the body count is likely to be minimized. A guy trying to win a gunfight against a couple teachers is probably going to have less time to execute children than one locked in a classroom waiting for a police assault.

Slightly off topic...

In the Philly attack by the actual student who shot the principal, did I read correctly that the janitor got the shotgun away from the kid, who was then confronted by the principal, who then got shot with a handgun?

Why was the janitor not holding the kid proned out at gunpoint with his own shotgun?
 
What's all this about arming teachers?! That's just a silly idea. You don't go around buying guns for people who don't want them and who aren't interested in them.

Instead, let's have a law wherein any citizen in America is permitted to own effective weapons, and also permitted to carry those weapons around with them wherever they go. Let's make sure it applies to everyone -- teachers, doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, and salespeople -- regardless of what they do for a living, no matter where they live.

Those who are interested will purchase firearms or pepper spray or tasers, and those who feel the need will get training in firearms use or martial arts, thus increasing their own safety and the safety of those around them. Those who aren't interested will still be protected by the presence of good citizens who are armed and ready to come to the defense of themselves and others.

Equal protection under the law -- no matter what you do for a living. Isn't that a radical idea?

pax
 
That's what we're saying pax. Let those who want to be armed, be armed. No matter what job or where.

I can't find anywhere anyone is proposing making "gunfighting" a required course for a teaching certificate. :D
 
Equal protection under the law -- no matter what you do for a living. Isn't that a radical idea?

Must be, stating something to that effect at another website caused another poster to decide that I was certifiably insane, a Nazi, racist, homophobe, and think that Pat Robertson is God's mouth! :evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top